# Omh Cto Loop

> [omh] Hermes CTO Loop workflow: roadmap, PM, technical tradeoffs, risk, delivery, release, and follow-up operating cadence. Use when the user says: cto-loop, cto loop, cto, cto pm, pm dev qa security ops, roadmap technical tradeoffs, technical tradeoff, delivery risk.

- Skill: `rlaope/omh-cto-loop-2` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add rlaope/omh-cto-loop-2`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/rlaope/omh-cto-loop-2/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Product & Planning
- Author: rlaope (https://skillmd.com/u/rlaope)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/rlaope/omh-cto-loop-2

---


# Cto Loop

This is an OMH `cto-loop` workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

## Why This Exists

`cto-loop` exists to keep `leadership` work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.

## Do Not Use When

- The request is a settings-only change, one bounded edit that is explicitly low-risk and has a direct owner and verification path, or a direct answer/diagnosis; handle it directly or use `strategy-brief` for a decision brief instead of starting a leadership operating loop.

## Examples

Good example:

- Prompt: cto-loop: run the PM, dev, QA, security, and ops loop for this risky billing launch.
- Expected behavior: Prepare the CTO operating model with role responsibilities, gates, blockers, and status boundaries.
- Why: The request needs a leadership operating loop, not just a generic plan.

Bad example:

- Prompt: cto-loop: treat casual chat or unaccepted work as if this workflow already produced verified results.
- Expected behavior: Ask a clarification question or route to a narrower workflow instead of forcing `cto-loop`.
- Why: The request lacks the required inputs or would overclaim work that Hermes did not observe.

## Completion Checklist

- Confirm the workflow target, evidence boundary, and stop condition are named.
- Report which outputs are prepared, observed, blocked, or missing.
- Name the smallest next verification or handoff instead of claiming completion from narration.

## Recovery Notes

- If required context is missing, ask one blocking question or route back to the narrower workflow.
- If runtime or wrapper evidence is unavailable, keep the status as not_observed and expose the next observable action.



## Use When

Use when Hermes should run a leadership-style operating loop that turns signals into roadmap decisions, technical tradeoffs, delivery risk, release readiness, and explicit follow-up handoffs.

    Strong routing signals: `cto-loop`, `cto loop`, `cto`, `cto pm`, `pm dev qa security ops`, `roadmap technical tradeoffs`, `technical tradeoff`, `delivery risk`, `release readiness`, `technical leadership loop`, `leadership operating loop`, `engineering leadership`, `CTO 구조`, `PM 구조`, `로드맵`, `아키텍처 트레이드오프`, `기술 리더십`, `출시 준비`

## Catalog Metadata

Category: `leadership`
Phase: `operating-loop`
Quality tier: `decision-gated`
Reasoning demand: `heavy`

Quality bar:

- Separate product priority, architecture tradeoff, delivery risk, release risk, and follow-up owner.
- Tie recommendations to observed signals or mark assumptions.
- Record accepted decisions separately from draft recommendations.
- Prepare executor handoffs only for accepted implementation follow-ups.

Required inputs:

- operating signals
- roadmap or release scope
- known risks
- decision owner

Expected outputs:

- priority frame
- architecture tradeoffs
- delivery risks
- decision note
- follow-up handoff candidates

Artifact expectations:

- leadership loop record or status summary when a wrapper captures decisions and follow-ups

Safety rules:

- Do not treat a CTO loop recommendation as an accepted roadmap decision.
- Do not imply CTO, PM, QA, Security, or Ops runtime agents exist without observed wrapper evidence.
- Separate strategy decisions from implementation handoffs and release evidence.

## Runtime Evidence

Use the current host's own tools and subagent/task mechanism when available;
otherwise run the same lanes sequentially or name the unavailable capability.
A prepared plan, handoff, checklist, or skill installation is not execution,
review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence. Report actual tool results or
`not_observed` / `not_available`; never invent dispatch or host accounting.
Treat supplied context as advisory, not proof of hidden memory reads or writes.
State scope, constraints, verification, and the stop condition before work.
Supporting paths are relative to this skill directory; sibling skill paths are
relative to its parent. Resolve them from the host-provided skill base directory
(`{baseDir}` on hosts that provide it), never a hardcoded install location.
A named workflow not installed here is unavailable, not permission to emulate
its host-specific capabilities. Verify through the real surface before done.